In more detail, during 2005, one of Germanys 16 federal states - Saxony Anhalt - supported by a lawyer of Monsanto (Freshfield &Co) - challenged the German GE-law. The epicenter of complaint was the liability rules and the public register which is a tool to inform the public where GE crops are grown. They claimed that these provisions of the law prevent farmers who want to cultivate GE crops to do so and that it is incompatible with the constitution. It may sound unbelievable but the former government of the state of Saxony-Anhalt took the side of the GE industry.

After 5 years, the top court’s decision comes to give a big blow to the GE industry intensions to abolish democratic provisions. The court confirmed that long-term risks of GMO are unknown because of the current scientific state of art. Therefore the government has a special obligation of executive care. Furthermore the government cannot handle this subject with a simple cost-benefit analysis. It is the government's responsibility to take care of the conservation of nature for future generations. In its decision the court several times pointed out that genetic engineering take a hand in the structures of life and the outcome/the aftermath could be irreversible. Hence there has to be a high level of precaution concerning the cultivation and the marketing of GMO products. (Read more in German)

One of the issues of the complaint was the fact that Germany has a public cultivation register where all farmers have to declare the locations of their GE fields and all data related to their cultivations. The court acknowledged that this register is very important for a democratic, pluralistic society. The register is a tool to inform the society and contribute in the process of forming public opinions. Another issue was the strict liability rules – and the court approved them completely. For instance, GE-farmers have to pay if GE-pollen contaminates neighbor fields. The court has also identified that GMO has especially drawbacks for the GE-free agriculture.

We know that GE organisms (plants, animals, micro-organisms) are living organisms that can multiply and cross-breed and pose a threat of irreversible damage to biodiversity and ecosystems; furthermore their effects on human and animal health are unknown. Therefore, there is an urgent need to adopt the precautionary principle and stop this high risk experiment.

This decision of the German court should be taken very seriously from all the governments in Europe as well the European Commission that aims to authorise more GE crops in Europe without addressing the risks and the liability issue. The future of agriculture is about ecological farming aligned with nature and should not include GE crops.

Stephanie Töwe-Rimkeit, is a sustainable agriculture campaigner for Greenpeace Germany.

Regarding GE food, check out my new fictional novel &quot;Sex, Lies, and Soybeans,&quot; at www.sexliesandsoybeans.com. It's a sexy techno-romp with timely messages about the dangers of GE foods, the abuses of big business, and the limitations of government control. When the government and big business say that &quot;nothing bad will happen,&quot; I look for a place to hide! GE grains and legumes, then Jurassic Salmon ... what's next? ... Rick Goeld

I know that GMO can be bad in the long terms but if we haden&#180;t used it on foods we wouldn&#180;t have been abel to support the earth popu...

I know that GMO can be bad in the long terms but if we haden&#180;t used it on foods we wouldn&#180;t have been abel to support the earth population att it's current stage // don't you think if they take it away it will be damaging to the population food supply? I'm just asking. :)

I am afraid that genetically engineered crops (GE) are not feeding the world right now or they will in the future. That'...

dear sebtogreen,

I am afraid that genetically engineered crops (GE) are not feeding the world right now or they will in the future. That's a myth that has been used by the biotech industry to promote their patented products. Hungry people need access to food or to the means to produce their food. As a matter of fact, according to United Nations (http://tinyurl.com/2u6k5g4), at the moment, we have 1 billion hungry in this world and GE crops have not helped to feed them. GE crops were not designed to increase yields and there are many incidents that have failed on the ground. Check the Counting the Cost report (http://tinyurl.com/3542bn4). Actually, GE crops are a destruction from the real solutions of ecological farming that we as society need to invest right now. Especially in the face of climate crisis and food crisis. Here you can find more info about the facts behind the myth of GE crops feeding the world http://tinyurl.com/377zfbm

The bt injected into the DNA of plants and the Glyphosate resistance also acquired into the DNA of
plants do more harm than help. First off Mo...

The bt injected into the DNA of plants and the Glyphosate resistance also acquired into the DNA of
plants do more harm than help. First off Monsanto Corp. has never made anything good in its entire history.
(Theres a big tip off right there) Second its completely obvious the multinational, multibillioinaire,
corporation is buying everyone off. One month Forbes retracts Monsanto, next month Monsanto is back in full graces.
Same thing happened on Wikipedia. I smell a big fat rat.

On to the proof, because I know all of you will be clamoring whether I really know anything about GE stuff
or if Im just following the bandwagon. (actually I get more people on the bandwagon with truth)

Bt levels have skyrocketed in the soil. Hence creating/created pest resistant to one of the safest
natural pesticides known to man. Therefore Biotech giant Monsanto just took what was everyones property
and is ruining it for all worldwide. (what greed). However Bt was never in the DNA of anything in the first place,
it was contained in the soil, putting it into the DNA has caused the increase of BT in the soil and no one knows
what the consequence will be. Now lets talk about Glyphospate. The plants designed to withstand
glyphospate (roundup ready) are also causing resistant species. One of these species is a soil pathogen
that already caused major crop damage and millions of dollars worth of losses. Now this pathogen is becoming
resistant to all RRplants. Fusarium. Fusarium is the cause of sudden soybean death, not too mention many other
diseases. So Monsanto has taken a problem, tried to make it better, but made it worse. It should also be know
that Monsanto corp. Is pushing for GE crops worldwide. Sometimes in the guise of aide for developing countries,
sometimes not. Monsanto has forced their products into India,Iraq, Afghanistan,Africa and other countries.
Its the number one priority to push and promote GE crops More productive crops are only part of the solution
to the world's food crisis.

There are many reasons for the current and projected food crisis. Among the most important are lack of income
to buy food, lack of infrastructure like roads to get products to market, trade policies that disadvantage farmers
in the developing world, lack of inputs such as fertilizer, lack of information, and low-yield farming practices.
More productive crops will do little to alleviate hunger if deficiencies in those areas are not addressed as well.

Where more productive crops are needed, there is little reason to believe that genetic engineering will be
better than other technologies -- in particular, sophisticated traditional breeding -- at producing higher yielding crops.

Many technologies can increase the yields of crops. These include traditional breeding, production of hybrids
, so-called marker-assisted breeding (a sophisticated way of enhancing traditional breeding by knowing which
plant cultivars carry which trait), and tissue culture methods for propagating virus-free root stocks.
All of these could help improve the productivity of crops in the developing world, but currently only limited
resources are available for applying them there.

So far, there no reason to believe that genetic engineering would be markedly better than these more traditional
technologies in improving crops. Early "gene dreams" were of nitrogen-fixing crops, higher intrinsic yield,
and drought tolerance. But so far none of these seems realistic because most involve complex multigene traits.
For the most part, genetically engineered crops are limited to one or two gene transfers and have relative few
applications of use to hungry people. Those that are of use, such as insect resistance and virus tolerance,
do not increase intrinsic yield and vary in effectiveness. In addition, they appear to be short lived due to the
almost certain evolution of resistant pests and pathogens.